1

HUMAN PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT THEORY, METHODOLOGY, AND TOOLS

IN CHURCH AND SCHOOL MINISTRY

Martin L. Schroeder

DM 999: Diagnostic Problem Solving – Root Cause Analysis (RCA)

February 27, 2017

2

Table of Contents

Chapter One: Introduction ......................................................................................................... 3

Purpose ........................................................................................................................... 3

Significance.................................................................................................................... 4

Terms ............................................................................................................................. 6

Chapter Two: Literature Review ............................................................................................... 8

The Way Things Have Always Been .......................................................................... 8

The Practice of Adaptive Leadership, Heifetz, Grashow, & Linsky ............................. 8

Church Be Nimble, Kuchma .......................................................................................... 11

The Way We Could Do Things ................................................................................... 12

Church Be Nimble, Kuchma .......................................................................................... 12

ThinkReliability, Galley & Bernardi ............................................................................. 14

Human Performance Improvement Handbook, Department of Energy ........................ 14

Root Cause Analysis: The Core of Problem Solving and Corrective Action, Okes ...... 17

Beyond Becker: Training in Imperfect Labour Markets, Acemoglu & Pischke ........... 18

Chapter Three: Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 18

Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 18

Application ..................................................................................................................... 20

Summary ........................................................................................................................ 25

References .................................................................................................................................. 26

3

Chapter One: Introduction

Purpose

The topic of decline in main stream churches has often been discussed by LCMS leaders

over the last half century; but, maybe more should be done to holistically address the quality and

effectiveness of our LCMS church and school partnerships and the possible internal reasons for

such a decline. The research questions this paper attempts to answer are: (1) Do LCMS church

and school leaders avoid using secular performance improvement theory, methodology, tools in

their ministries and, if so, why? (2) Would church and school ministries be more effective if they

used secular performance improvement theory, methodology, and tools? (3) And is it

theologically appropriate to use performance improvement theory, methodology, and tools in

ministry settings?

This paper will show that LCMS church and school leaders are not trained sufficiently in

secular performance improvement theories, because the LCMS functions as a closed system and

does not recognize the need for such methods. It will further attempt to show that church and

school ministries would be more effective in removing those things that are a hindrance to the

gospel1 if they used secular performance improvement theories and methods in their daily

ministry operations. And finally, this paper will propose that using such tools is the same as

using any of God’s created gifts as instruments for our good and to His glory.

1 Hebrews 12:1 – “…let us throw off everything that hinders…”.

4

Significance

Per a study cited in the Special Issue of the Journal of Lutheran Mission, dated December

2016, the LCMS is losing members as both young and old alike are leaving their home

congregations. The young are leaving the rural communities for employment and the old are

leaving to retire in the south and southwest. The exodus of young people is described as “a trend

also called the ‘rural brain drain.’2 … To sum up, large numbers of LCMS adherents tend to be

found in counties that are losing population and where the median age is higher.” In other

words, the talent pool is shrinking, and the traditional professional church staff are not trained

to pick up the slack. This front receives little consideration. Instead, to avoid further decline

of the LCMS, the journal prescribes persuading young people to move to rural areas, or

dissuading them from leaving in the first place. If young people cannot be dissuaded, the

suggested remedy is planting churches wherever young people are going.3

Another reason cited for declining membership is that families are having fewer

children because young people are marrying and having children later than in past

generations.4 The study acknowledges that later marriages and lower fertility levels are

“generally celebrated by the contemporary society.”5 In response, the LCMS is encouraged to

“pursue policies that facilitate earlier marriages and larger families.”6 Influencing family

planning choices, particularly through policies, may not be an ideal way to solve the root

causes of the membership problem and residual effects. The study does recognize the limits of

2 Journal of Lutheran Mission – December 2016, Special Edition., 3 Ibid., 28. 4 Ibid., 5 Ibid., 11. 6 Ibid.

5

this approach, noting efforts should be made to curtail these trends, “even if it can only lead to

marginal improvement.”7

Another notable change in the LCMS, not mentioned in the Journal Special Report, is the

evolving church and school ministry. In 2012/13, the LCMS Lutheran Schools Statistics

reported a combined total number of 2,335 early learning centers, elementary schools, and high

schools. In only two years (2014/15) the LCMS Lutheran Schools Statistics reported a combined

total of 2,111 - a decline of 10% in 2 years. From these studies, it seems churches with schools

may be a sub group on the frontlines of the emerging church. Is there a relationship between the

aging and shrinking population to the decline in schools, or is it something else? Further

research to compare the decline in churches with schools to churches with no schools is required.

However, combining a shrinking population with an aging population, the ‘rural brain drain’ is

compounded. There are even fewer human resources available due to the level of interest and

physical limits of those in retirement to oversee evolving technology, changing regulatory

laws, policies and procedures manuals, staff job descriptions and evaluations, and the

numerous other administrative tasks of overseeing diverse ministry groups.

Given the LCMS’s rich history and commitment to Christian education, solving the

problem of the struggling church-school ministries deserves priority attention in the discussion of

the shrinking church. From the earliest days of the Lutheran church, Lutheran Churches

supported Lutheran schools. Luther was a big proponent of educating children and young

7 Ibid., 27.

6

people. Luther’s strong position on teaching our children is the reason he wrote the Catechism

and wrote to the Christian princes to encourage them to build schools.8

Luther said that schools help the Church by imparting a Christian training to children, by

preparing useful teachers and heads of families, and by fitting ministers to preach and defend the

Gospel. “When schools prosper,” says Luther, “the Church remains righteous and her doctrine

pure. … Young pupils and students are the seed and source of the Church. If we were dead,

whence would come our successors, if not from the schools? For the sake of the Church we

must have and maintain Christian schools. They may not appear attractive, but they are useful

and necessary. Children are taught the Lord’s Prayer and the Creed, and thus the Church is

wonderfully aided through the primary schools.”9 Luther also believed that good schools were

necessary for the training of civil leaders so that society could have wise and good leaders.10

Terms

Root Cause Analysis.

Root cause analysis, as used in this paper, is “the establishing of a logically complete,

evidence based, tightly coupled chains of factors, from the least acceptable consequences to the

deepest significant underlying causes.”11

Diagnostic Problem Solving

For use in this paper, diagnostic problem solving is distinguished from brainstorming,

troubleshooting, and problem solving activities. Brainstorming, troubleshooting, and problem

8 F.V.N. Painter, A.M., “Luther On Education,” (Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis, Mo., 1928.), 128. 9 Ibid., 132 – 133. 10 Ibid., 133 – 139. 11 Ibid.

7

solving activities are intended to be completed in a short period of time and at nominal expense;

whereas diagnostic problem solving implies a process of using theory, methods, and tools to

discover and remove problems at the root cause level, implement solutions, and monitoring the

implementation plan.

Cause Mapping

Cause Mapping is a root cause analysis method used to organize, document, analyze, and

solve problems. It is a simple visual map illustrating how a sequence of causes led to a problem.

Human Performance Improvement

Human Performance Improvement (HPI) is a field of study related to process

improvement methodologies. The goal of the theory is focused on improving performance in

whatever activity is being pursued. HPI will draw from many disciplines to improve the quality

of output. “It stresses a rigorous analysis to identify the causes for performance gaps, provide

appropriate interventions to improve and sustain performance, and finally to evaluate the results

against the requirements.”12 Human Performance Technology (HPT) can be described as a

systematic approach to improving individual and organizational performance.

The Five Whys

The “5 Whys” is an iterative interrogative technique used to explore the cause-and-effect

relationships underlying a particular problem.[1] The primary goal of the technique is to

determine the root cause of a defect or problem by repeating the question "Why?" Each answer

12 Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_performance_technology . (February 25, 2017).

8

forms the basis of the next question. The "5" in the name derives from an anecdotal observation

on the number of iterations needed to resolve the problem.13

Smart World

Richard Ogle’s concept of the “smart world:”14 basically, making connections to the

many ideas in the world around us. The goal is to spark new ideas and creative solutions to the

recurring problems.

Chapter Two: Literature Review

The Way We’ve Always Done Things

Cultural Norms and Forces.

The authors of The Practice of Adaptive Leadership recommend identifying cultural

norms and forces to understand “what is considered acceptable and unacceptable behavior.”15

They recommend becoming aware of the stories, group norms, rituals, and meeting protocols.

The authors observe, “Unlike [organizational] structures the culture of an organization is not

usually written down or formally documented, so it may be hard to describe in precise terms.”16

The authors suggest, “Adaptive leadership requires understanding the group’s culture and

assessing which aspects of it facilitate change and which stand in the way.”17 Unfortunately,

“Too often, people taking on tough issues in organizational life do not devote enough time to this

diagnosis.”18

13 Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_Whys . (February 25, 2017). 14 Ibid., 57. 15 Heifetz, Grashow, Linsky, “The Practice of Adaptive Leadership,” (Harvard Business Press, Boston, Massachusetts, 2009.), 57. 16 Ibid. 17 Ibid. 18 Ibid.

9

Heifetz, Grashow, and Linksy explain why organizations often push forward without

adapting to the changes around them. They assert, “Organizational systems take on a life of its

own, selecting, rewarding, and absorbing members into it who then perpetuate the system.”19

The goal is to keep the machine and momentum going, avoid any delay. Heifetz, Grashow, and

Linksy warn such self-reinforcing behavior can “become tenacious quickly”.20 The threat to

diagnostic problem solving and root cause analysis (HPI) now becomes the organizational

system which does not encourage behavior that disrupts the established way of thinking and

talking even during times of significant change. Coincidentally, many “organizations get trapped

by their current ways of doing things, simply because these ways worked in the past.”21

Jumping to Conclusions and Closed Systems.

Luther would agree that man’s perspective, individually and corporate, is limited in its

view and direction, always stifling innovation. He says man is always looking in one direction:

above himself to that which is “lofty” and he cannot see into the depths of those who suffer.22

From this perspective, the organizational challenge is man’s narrow (closed system) perspective.

He does not see God or his neighbor, but only himself.

“In organizational and political life, people often jump to treatment without stepping back to

clarify the nature of the problem itself” says Ronald Heifetz.23 Instead, a helpful diagnostic tool

to locating the resistance to change is to look for the feedback patterns. Every organization, like

a church-school ministry, has developed reinforcing behavior. This was the adaptive behavior

19 Ibid. 20 Ronald Heifetz, Alexander Grashow, Mary Linsky, “The Practice of Adaptive Leadership”, (Harvard Business Press, Boston Massachusetts, 2009.) 50. 21 Ibid. 22 LW 21:299 – 300. 23 Ibid., 47.

10

which allowed the church to survive during a once challenging time, but is no longer useful in

the current situation.

Jumping to conclusions often happens by using default problem-solving models. Defaults

are described as, “ways of looking at situations that lead people to behave in ways that are

comfortable and that have generated desirable results in the past.”24 Heifetz describes that, “a

default response, puts people on familiar ground and plays to their organization’s strength.”25

For example, the conversation may begin by saying: “We have been here before,” or “Last time

we were struggling this is what we did” or “We are not alone, all the other mainstream

denominations are experiencing the same declines.” Blind spots often accompany interpretative

and behavior defaults. The quandary is “It can blind people to a wider array of solutions and

ideas that might generate even more value.”26 Defaults are constraining and do not allow for

cross-pollinating in God’s smart world.

Heifetz recommends identifying default interpretations that your organization regularly

makes. For example: “Has the LCMS fallen back on more evangelism, more youth outreach,

more prayer, more Bible study, more fellowship, or more church planting as default problem-

solving methods from the past to avoid making real change?” In what situations has the default

worked well? In what situations, has it proved less effective? What’s different about those two

situations?

A church-school ministry may be considered a “closed system” when unable to recognize the

need for new ways of thinking and behaving to address current challenges. Pastors and

principals have comfort levels, too, and use feedback patterns to keep the life of the church and

24 Ibid., 64. 25 Ibid. 26 Ibid.

11

school steady at a level familiar and comfortable to them. Congregations get comfortable at their

size, with their type of people, with an outlook, and with levels and types of ministry programs.

Like thermostats, “Whenever the church begins to deviate from the desired comfort level, signals

are sent to bring the system back into desired states.”27

Machine Model Thinking.

In my experience, when church and schools get stuck they think of their ministries like

machines. One of the problems with a machine is that its parts “inevitably wear out and break

down.”28 Some church-school ministries believe they can solve problems by taking one person

out and inserting a new person, just like an owner would do with a tractor belt or stripped nut.

The assumption is that, being like a machine, the problem is fixed by removing the defective part

and operations should resume like before.29

Marty Kuchma, author of, “The Nimble Church,” notes the simplicity of the machine

model: “Machines are conglomerations of parts positioned in relation to other parts so that

sufficient force in a particular direction causes the machine to produce the same result over and

over again.”30 Kuchma argues machine thinking has no room for “spontaneous reorganization,”

that is, creative thinking or borrowing from the ‘smart world.’31 To preserve the machine model,

he says, “the capacity for creative self-expression by any of the parts must deliberately be

limited.”32 New ideas for old problems are discouraged; this lack of expression and curiosity

(shallow causes) can pile on and, overtime, become the root cause of the problem.

27 Ibid., 159 – 160. 28 Ibid., 14. 29 Ibid., 15. 30 Ibid. 31 Ibid. 32 Ibid., 14 – 15.

12

Among the problems of machine-model thinking is, “[the] assumption that life will be

under control if everyone plays his part, when things do break down, someone or something

naturally gets blamed.”33 Kuchma, along with many other systems theorists, emphasizes the

interconnectedness that exists in the human element of organizations, saying, “Machine models

discount the importance of the relationship networks that underlie all human organizations.”34

He concludes, “While machine model thinking may be perfectly adequate for understanding

machines, it does not translate well to working with living organisms and organizations,

including congregations.”35 You cannot just replace people with people.

Finally, like the authors of The Practice of Adaptive Leadership, Kuchma describes an

organization’s tenacious self-reinforcing behavior within a machine-model framework of

organizations: there is no room for disturbance or disturbed people (they get removed and

replaced).36

The Way We Could Do Things

The alternative to the “old” machine model, or a closed system, is a “new” self-

organizing model that invests in educating people and utilizing new theories, methods, and tools

in God’s smart world.

Self-Organizing Systems Thinking.

Kuchma is committed to the idea of innovative thinking when it comes to the church and

ministry leaders. For him the term “self-organizing” is a simple way to capture the idea of each

33 Ibid. 34 Ibid., 16. 35 Ibid. 36 Ibid., 14-15.

13

organization customizing their adaptation per their context. We might compare Kuchma’s self-

organizing concept to the personal nature of the Holy Spirit activity of applying Sunday’s

message in a variety of ways per each hearer in the pew.37 Kuchma encourages his audience, “to

pioneer organizational models that work for the age in which we live.”38 He advises this type of

innovative thinking will involve an open system (open mind) and hard choices. He ties these

characteristics of the model to the effectiveness and problem solving abilities of the

organization’s leaders. He asserts, “the notion of self-organization which makes it possible for

organizations to ‘stay strong by staying open’ so that they might ‘create structures that fit the

moment’.”39 Those who struggle with the ‘open-mindedness’ of postmodern thinking may

unintentionally see Kuchma’s concept of the self-organizing system as too post-modern, with no

absolutes. But this is not what he argues. Instead, he warns that the organization must hold fast

to its identity.

What he does argue for is a “nimble” organization able to make the necessary

adjustments to the changing needs of their ministry context.40 In the self-organizing model,

Kuchma asserts, “Contrary to machine model organizations that strive for equilibrium, open,

self-organizing systems make the most of imbalance to bring about adaptation and change.”41

He recalls one consultant who, “frequently made people uneasy and uncomfortable.”42 Kuchma

notes, “They became disturbed enough to bring about constructive change.”43 In conjunction

with this thought Kuchma notes it is an organization’s identity that holds them together in

37 The preacher is aware of the Spirit’s activity and leaves room in his preaching for the Spirt to work in each hearer’s heart. 38 Ibid., 39. 39 Ibid., 66. 40 Luther’s where the spirit blows quote… 41 Ibid., 67. 42 Ibid. 43 Ibid.

14

change. He says, “Identity sums up the enduring aspects of the organization that remain when all

else is stripped away.”44 While Kuchma’s self-organizing model promotes innovation and an

open system, it does not encourage it at the expense of the organization’s identity and core

beliefs.

Kuchma believes congregations now live in a time when an old paradigm is being pushed

to its limits. He states, “The machine-model paradigm that has prevailed in organizations for

centuries is now being challenged by another paradigm that views organizations as living

systems.”45

Root Cause Analysis and Human Performance Improvement.

Organizations have undergone a paradigm shift over the last century involving new ways

of addressing problems. Root case analysis (RCA) is a problem-solving method rooted in the

field of human performance improvement. Human performance improvement is formally used

in almost all industries, dating back to the World War eras. “U.S. corporations demonstrated

excellent capacity to produce gargantuan quantities of tanks, artillery, planes, landing craft,

surface ships, and submarines, as well as rifles, machine guns, clothing, and so on,” cites the US

Department of Energy, “in support of the nation’s challenge to wage war both in Europe and in

the Pacific during World War II.”46 At the time, the United States Government commissioned

studies to improve development and manufacturing of space technology and war machinery.

After the war, “Government bureaucracies developed to regulate industries and labor

organizations and to rein in profit focused capitalist bureaucracies, and communities organized to

44 Ibid., 68. 45 Ibid. 46 DOE. (June 2009), Human Performance Improvement Handbook. (US Government, US Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. 20585.), 144.

15

provide social services once provided by industrial organizations.”47 Quality control and safety

became the main concerns: “Organizations flourish or fail primarily for two reasons—quality

and safety—that is, their ability or inability to compete in the marketplace or their ability or

inability to avoid major events.”48 Root Cause Analysis, and other diagnostic problem-solving

techniques, were developed to help maintain production quotas, quality, and safety standards.

The goal in diagnostic problem-solving is to apply a rigorous process of study to

eliminate root causes and promote improvements. For instance, if a plane engine keeps catching

on fire, the root cause must be eliminated. If patients keep dying when undergoing a procedure,

the root cause must be eliminated. Likewise, when a church-school ministry faces significant

hindrances, the goal should be to use God’s smart world instruments as servants to eliminate the

root causes to reclaim resources and refocus on the primary task of promoting the gospel.

There are several schools of thought on how many steps are involved in root cause

analysis: Andersen and Fagerhaug put forward six steps, Duke Okes recommends ten steps, and

the consultants from ThinkReliability use three. For ease of application, this paper will

summarize ThinkReliability’s three step approach of root cause analysis.

The first step in root cause analysis is to define the problem. Mark Galley, an RCA

consultant at ThinkReliability, explains, “To accurately define a failure, there are four simple

questions: What is the problem(s), When did it happen (Causes)? Where did it happen? How

were the overall goals impacted? Instead of writing a long problem description, simply answer

47 Ibid., 143. 48 Ibid., 144.

16

these four questions in an outline format. Don’t write responses as complete sentences, just short

phrases.”49

The second step is analysis. The analysis (or investigation), should not start with what

people see as “the problem(s)” but with the impact to the overall goals. How were the overall

goals impacted negatively? People see problems differently, but defining every “problem” by

how it negatively impacts the goals provides a consistent starting point. Start with the impact to

the overall goals to define your next problem.50 In summary, “the organization views the

problem as any deviation from the ideal state.”51

Galley warns that every effect has causes (plural). Organizations may try to identify a

single cause of an issue, what is commonly referred to as the “root cause.” There is not a single

cause to any incident. There are causes.52 Instead he recommends, “As an incident is broken

down into detail, more and more causes are revealed. Understanding these detailed causes

reveals additional ways the problem could possibly be solved. As the causes get more specific

the solutions also get more specific. Problems are not solved in general. Problems are solved

when specific action is taken.”53

One of the most effective ways to communicate the causes of a problem is in a visual

format, like a cause map. Again, the cause-and-effect analysis starts with the negative impact to

the overall goals, or ideal state. This is where most RCA practitioners utilize a tool called “The 5

Whys.”54 The 5 Why questions take the investigation team backwards in time through the

49 Mark Galley, “Basic Elements of a Comprehensive Investigation,” (ThinkReliability, Houston, Texas, 2008.), 2. 50 Ibid. 51 Ibid. 52 Ibid. 53 Ibid. 54 See definition in “Terminology” section of this paper.

17

problem, visually breaking down and mapping the cause-and-effect relationships as the

information is collected, and documenting the investigation with supporting evidence.55

Cause Mapping

Cause mapping is another RCA tool help used to guide the diagnostic analysis process

and visualize the steps. Jon Bernardi observes, “When completing a Cause Map, you are striving

for as much detail as you need to come up with workable and practical solutions to prevent the

issue or incident from recurring.”56 “It also means you need to probe beyond the generalities of

the situation, i.e., “shrinking population” or “aging population.” Such generalities in our

ministry context are pervasive: changing demographics, poor economic environment, post-

modern culture, meta-physical explanations, and so on. With the increased specificity,

categorization becomes increasingly difficult.”57 This is a good outcome according Bearnardi.

He says, “Remember, your goal is to find the cause-and-effect relationships so that you can come

up with a good range of solution possibilities and ultimately the solutions you will implement.”58

Cause mapping promotes linking and prioritizing causes based on how they impact goals, like

God’s mission in our ministry context. Among the HPI tools available, many organizations will

use a grid of some type to define the level of impact and the level of investigation. A three-by-

three grid is very common (with high, medium, and low for frequency and impact scales).59

The third step is finding and implementing the solutions. Duke Okes, author of “Root

Cause Analysis – The Core of Problem Solving and Corrective Action” advises, “Once a list of

55 Mark Galley, Ibid., 3. 56 Jon Bernardi, “Cause Categorization: Does it Aid in Improvement.” 57 Ibid. 58 Ibid. 59 Ibid.

18

possible solutions has been generated, the solutions must be sorted through to identify the one(s)

to be implemented.”60 At this stage Okes observes, “Two major issues need to be considered

relative to the decision-making process: (1) who should make the decision, and (2) what criteria

should be used to make it?”61

When a church-school ministry is ready to implement a solution, Okes cautions, “Finding

a good solution is one thing, but effectively implementing it is another. With the former it’s all

cognitive, but with the latter it’s all about getting organizational resources very focused for a

specific period of time.”62 In my experience, selecting the solution to be implemented, and who

is responsible for implementation, is a challenge for most church and school ministries -

especially during any organizational change. Organizational change in a church-school ministry

could include reassessing budget limits, adding, or reducing staff, key staff or faculty member

retiring, and so on. Interestingly, Okes includes deferring to an experienced or knowledgeable

individual as a viable option. Deferring to an individual regarding decisions that historically are

handled at voter’s meetings is not something church and school ministries do instinctively. It

requires a great deal of change to constitutions, by-laws, guidelines, and job descriptions.

Deferring to an individual is not easy to do when roles and responsibilities are not formally

established to accommodate a leaner decision-making model, or if knowledge and training is not

perceived to be present.

Human Capital Theory.

Human Capital Theory addresses the value of a person’s collective knowledge, skills,

abilities, experience, judgement, Christian character (spiritual maturity), emotional maturity, and

60 Duke Okes, “Root Cause Analysis: The Core of Problem Solving and Corrective Action,” (ASQ Quality Press, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 2009.), 106. 61 Ibid. 62 Ibid., 113.

19

so on. In a church and school environment, human capital is the number one asset (blessing):

the hands and feet by which the gospel comes. Financial reports, and often annual

congregational reports, are not able to reflect properly the value of a church and school’s human

capital. Churches and schools should not ignore the proper use, management, and investment in

the faculty and staffs’ spiritual and professional growth. Studies have shown there are

significant benefits to those organizations that make investments in people.63

Chapter Three: Conclusion

While the study cited in the Special Issue of the Journal of Lutheran Mission attempted

to identify the reason(s) for declining church and school populations, the study reflected

primarily demographic data and suggested outdated solutions. Evangelism, youth outreach,

church planting, and family planning matters have long been solutions proposed by church and

school leaders. The literature read for this review suggests that LCMS churches repeat patterns

of behavior (defaults and feedback patterns) that worked in the past but are no longer

appropriate for the current situation. In day to day operations, many LCMS churches and

schools are closed systems using outdated management strategies, organizational models,

staffing configurations, and job descriptions; and fall into habituation and machine model

thinking to solve organizational and financially complex and dynamic problems.

What was not addressed in the literature were three profoundly important issues: (1) the

unreliability of data used in church and school financial and operational decision making and

statistical reporting, (2) the poor financial management skills of both churches and schools, and

(3) the theological reasons for the LCMS’s unwillingness to use secular performance strategies

in church settings. From my experience, the unreliability of data enables churches and schools to

63 Acemoglu & Pischke, “Beyond Becker: Training in Imperfect Labour Markets,” (Royal Economic Society, February, 1999.) Abstract.

20

continue to operate as closed systems, making poor decisions and not acknowledging the actual

or current ministry state. The poor financial management skills and oversight abilities of

churches and schools profoundly impact ministry resources, staff effectiveness, and the level of

conflict between ministries.

Possibly most importantly, the theological reasons for the unwillingness to use or learn

secular performance theories, methods, and tools may display a misapplication of important

doctrines. Some in the LCMS may flinch at the idea of moving away from the way things have

always been done, genuinely believing it would mean putting aside biblical norms and truths.

But, using performance methods to comply with budget limits, improve the quality of ministry,

and to write policy to respect every person’s functioning position is using God’s creation as His

instruments in service to our neighbor. I would propose secular HPI tools can be used as a

servant to help “equip the saints for works of ministry [and] build up the body of Christ”64 without

doing away with biblical truths or the primary mission of the church.

Application

Root Cause Analysis principles (and other HPI theories, methods, and tools) from God’s

smart world could easily be applied to our church and school ministries.

The first step would be to make sure church and school leaders are rooted in good

theology. There may be more confusion surrounding diagnostic problem-solving and root cause

analysis for the community of faith than for the general market place. On the one hand, the

community of faith is committed to trusting God in all circumstances, especially in times of

trouble and want. The temptation in this theological mindset is to abandon attempts to learn and

64 Ephesians 4:12.

21

use diagnostic problem-solving techniques at all, believing God is the ultimate problem solver

and the church must trust and wait. On the other hand, the community of faith should be active

in love and not be found lacking in any good works. In this scenario, the temptation is to dive

into problem-solving and unknowingly (due to lack of training and understanding) use HPI as a

tool to link everything to the spiritual heart of the faithful, or “faithless”. Often this approach

involves spiritual inquisitions, witch-hunts, and concludes in only giving many of God’s children

a bad conscience. The scene of the investigation becomes man’s heart and eliminating a root

cause becomes eliminating people.

The better approach is to see all people and things (HPI) as God’s instruments to be used

to His glory. Luther’s doctrines of divine providence and vocation describe all creation as in

service to God as His instruments to bring about His purpose everywhere. There is much to

learn from God’s smart world in theories and methods to apply in church and school life. Like

the printing press in Luther’s day, secular theories and methods can be applied for our neighbor's

good and God's glory.

We understand that God has eliminated the root cause of our problems, sin, by his holy

Lamb. The problems considered in HPI deal in the kingdom of the left-hand (such as poor

training, equipment failure, human error, unclear processes, no procedures, no guidelines, no

boundaries, poor organizational structure, poor reporting, and so on) and are not fundamentally

matters of a spiritual nature or eternity. Solving these problems is certainly not the mission of

the church. Rather, solving these problems is purely intended to remove the obstacles that hinder

the proclamation of the gospel; 65 that is, the root of these left-hand kingdom problems is not a

matter of actual or specific sins.66 Every industry uses some level of root cause analysis to

65 Hebrews 12:1. 66 See Romans 8:21-22.

22

investigate and find the underlying cause of a diverse set of problems, and the church may also

use “the hands, channels, and means by which God gives all things”67 in order to serve his

purpose.

There will be push back to the unfamiliar way of doing things. The challenge is the

church culture. It may resist new roles and responsibilities of oversight for the pastoral office,

principal, and other staff leadership. Again, Ronald Heifetz notes this is the normal behavior of

a long-time established institution: the system wants to normalize you to reinforce the way things

have always been. It is the survival instinct built in to the organizational culture. But to discover

a problem’s root cause one must resist being absorbed by the “tenacity” of the system.68

The second step to introducing HPI as a gift from God’s smart world, would be to

require our professional church workers receive undergraduate and seminary training in these

theories, methods, and tools as a part of their basic education to prepare for the church-school

vocational setting. Students preparing for ministry as pastors, principals, or teachers, should be

trained in skills specifically designed for the religious non-profit community. Training may be in

performance-related fields, or basic organizational, financial, and operational skills. In addition,

continuing education in performance-related fields should be made available once in the field of

service. While there are many online resources and college and graduate level electives, more

funds could be allocated for professional development and advanced degrees. Having more

trained church workers, able to address the growing complexity of overseeing a joint church-

school ministry, can only be a blessing. To effectively reduce left-hand kingdom obstacles is an

67 Luther’s Large Catechism, First Commandment, Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions, 361. 68 Ronald Heifetz, “The Practice of Adaptive Leadership”, 50.

23

act of loving one’s neighbor and allows ministries to focus resources on proclaiming the good

news.

Based on my experience and size theory principles, some of our professional church

workers may be unintentionally culling the size of the congregations and schools they oversee to

match their skills and abilities; that is, to a manageable size. In congregation after congregation,

and school after school, I see the need for staff and faculty to have improved church and school

administration, operations, and financial oversight training.

Failure to invest in people may also lead to poorly trained employees and lay leaders who

are unaware of how their ministry’s ever advancing and evolving delivering systems function.

Many department heads and ministry volunteers fall behind the times. In many churches and

schools, there is a bottle neck in the knowledge center. Only a few people (possibly only the

pastor) can describe all the ministry processes and projects from start to finish and all the

supporting activities and persons; that is, how the weekly worship service cycle is planned and

completed, visitors and members are assimilated, an annual Bible study or small group ministry

program is developed and delivered, a new student is recruited and receives Christian education,

and so on. Since there is little documentation, when that person leaves, the knowledge also

leaves. Sadly, many church and schools identify follow-through to completion as a significant

problem in their ministries.

Even for the few who do know the internal processes, in many cases this knowledge does

not translate into prudent oversight and management of the financial resources and limits, the

building resources and limits, and the work flow and processes of ministry projects. There is

little hope the knowledge of one generation of leaders will successfully be handed off to the next.

24

Instead, the organization starts all over again learning how to get to first base, but never fully

maturing. On all fronts, it is clear action is needed to adapt to the changes (internal and external)

occurring to our church and school ministry partnership.

The third step in introducing HPI in churches and schools is to empower our professional

church workers. Marty Kuchma encourages his audience, “to pioneer organizational models that

work for the age in which we live.”69 As the Special Issue of the Mission Journal indicated the

number of lay people is diminishing and volunteer hours are diminishing. A logical conclusion

is the professional church workers will need to take up the slack. One way to do this is through

empowering the staff with more responsibility and oversight to lead in their areas of expertise.

Here I am thinking of the governance model. This includes the staff being part of the financial

planning team, budget owners, hiring and firing, performance evaluations and pay raises. They

need to be entrusted with responsibilities which are directly impacting how their ministry

department function and the outcome. They need skin in the game. They need the tools to guide

and navigate their ministry resources and efforts towards accomplishing the congregation’s

strategic vision.

Some of my readers may think policy governance is the norm, but I do not believe that is the

case. In 2014, in the Michigan District of the LCMS of the nearly 400 churches, less than 20

operated in a policy governance model. Policy governance empowers the trained church workers

to effect change per their job descriptions and within the limits given to them via the board of

directors.

Such responsibility fosters trust and team work. Department heads are able to creatively

assist one another when funds are tight or needs arise by sacrificing “in love” their department

69 Ibid., 39.

25

resources to provide for their neighbors’. The hidden blessing is that church workers can unify

in real and tangible ways. They are encouraged to work together to solve the day to day ministry

challenges. And they do so during working hours, 5 days a week. This means fewer evening

meetings and voting via email by lay volunteers.

Rather than empowering church workers to engage in daily operational matters, in most

churches lay volunteers are engaging in front line administrative operations. It is almost like a

role-reversal, with professional church workers taking on more administrative oversight and

freeing lay volunteers to be involved in hands-on ministry. By engaging professional church

workers better, church workers are forced to prioritize, problem solve, and strategically plan for

the care and nurture of the various ministries in context with neighboring ministries. What an

opportunity for church workers to model to God’s people how to live and work together in

Christ-like love! Additionally, when professional church workers are empowered to do their

work well, they mature professionally and realize a new sense of satisfaction in ministry and

being in service to God’s people.

By no means is this paper intended to exhaust the possible causes of the shrinking and

aging membership or the closing schools in the LCMS. Further steps will be needed to address

these problems and meet the challenges.

Summary

This research paper addressed whether LCMS church and school leaders would benefit

from using secular performance improvement theory and methods (HPI) in their ministries and,

if so, whether church and school leaders would use HPI. This paper also discussed the

theological underpinnings of using HPI in church and school ministry settings.

26

The literature showed that LCMS church and school leaders do not use secular

performance improvement theories and methods, because they are not trained in HPI. The

LCMS functions as a closed system and does not recognize the need for such methods. The

literature showed how all organizations can become “stuck” in default problem-solving patterns,

which can result in closed systems and an inability to innovate and adapt to change. Since

churches and schools are organizations, they would be more effective in their ministries if they

used secular performance improvement theories and methods in their daily ministry operations.

Finally, this paper showed that using such HPI tools can be good and right in God’s kingdom of

the left hand and can be used for our good and to His glory. I maintain that believers may, in

good conscience, use root cause analysis and similar methods (theories and tools) in ministry

settings as one of God’s good gifts to be a blessing in one’s vocation.

27

References

Acemoglu & Pischke, “Beyond Becker: Training in Imperfect Labour Markets,” (Royal

Economic Society, February, 1999.) Abstract.

Andersen, Bjorn & Fagerhaug, Tom Natland. (2013). The ASQ Pocket Guide to Root Cause

Analysis. (American Society for Quality, Quality Press, Milwaukee, WI).

Andersen, Bjorn & Fagerhaug, Tom. (2006). Root Cause Analysis: Simplified Tools and

Techniques. (ASQ Quality Press, Milwaukee, Wisconsin).

Bernardi, Jon. (no date). Cause Categorization: Does it aid in Improvement?” Retrieved from

https://www.thinkreliability.com/articles-and-downloads/

Collver, Albert B. III, & Day, Bart & Fale, John. (2016). Journal of Lutheran Mission: Special

Issue. (The Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod, St. Louis, MO).

Department of Energy (DOE). (June 2009). Human Performance Improvement Handbook:

Volume 1 Concepts and Principals. (US Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.

20585).

Galley, Mark. (2008). Basic Elements of a Comprehensive Investigation. Retrieved from

https://www.thinkreliability.com/articles-and-downloads/

Heifetz, Ronald & Grashow, Alexander & Linsky, Marty. (2009). The Practice of Adaptive

Leadership: Tools and Tactics for Changing Your Organization and the World. (Harvard

Business Press, Boston, Massachusetts).

Kuchma, Marty. (2014). Church Be Nimble. (Church Be Nimble Publications).

Luther, Martin. (1956). Martin Luther’s Work: The Sermon on The Mount and The Magnificat.

(Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis, Missouri).

28

Okes, Duke. (2009). Root Cause Analysis: The Core of Problem Solving and Corrective Action.

(ASQ Quality Press, Milwaukee, Wisconsisn).

Painter, F.V.N. (1889). Luther on Education. (Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis, MO).